MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PD17-08: Pooled gene expression analysis and association with treatment response in patients with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer in the MONALEESA-2, -3, and -7 trials

2023· article· en· W4322775479 on OpenAlexaff
Aditya Bardia, Faye Su, Nadia Solovieff, Fabrice André, Carlos L. Arteaga, Patrick Neven, Yoon Sim Yap, Yen‐Shen Lu, Stephen Chia, Dennis Slamon, Seock‐Ah Im, Arunava Chakravartty, Agnes Lteif, Tetiana Taran, Debu Tripathy

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerInternal medicineOncologyCancerCyclin-dependent kinase 6Metastatic breast cancerProgression-free survivalGene expressionGenePalbociclibBioinformaticsCyclin D1BiologyOverall survivalCell cycleGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The Phase III MONALEESA (ML)-2, -3, and -7 trials showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with ribociclib (RIB) + endocrine therapy (ET) over placebo (PBO) + ET in patients (pts) with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer (ABC); improvement in OS with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) has been observed in some, but not all clinical trials. Gene expression analyses for each separate ML study were reported previously. Given the differences in CDK4 vs CDK6 inhibition between RIB and other CDK4/6i, we evaluated the association between cell cycle (CC)–related genes and outcomes based on pooled analysis of gene expression using tumor samples from the ML-2, -3, and -7 trials. Methods: Gene expression data were generated from pre-treatment archival tumor samples (primary, 73%; metastatic, 27%) with a customized NanoString nCounter panel (781 genes) including genes involved in CC, other signaling pathways, and breast cancer biology. Samples were pooled from 1139 pre- and postmenopausal pts with HR+/HER2− ABC across the 3 ML studies, which included pts on first- and second-line therapy. Data were categorized into training (80%) and test (20%) datasets. The training dataset was used to analyze each gene (modeled continuously) individually for an association with PFS, and genes with a gene × treatment (tx) interaction P value <.10 were evaluated in the test dataset. Genes or gene signatures were classified by tertiles based on expression level (low/medium/high). For each tertile, median (m) PFS was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and hazard ratios (HRs) of tx benefit (RIB vs PBO) were estimated. A Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for clinical covariates was used. A machine learning approach (elastic net survival model with stability selection), which used available gene expression data and select clinical factors and their interactions with tx arms, was applied to predict PFS. Results: This report focused on CC-related genes and signatures. Gene expression levels of CDKN2B and the expression ratio of CCND1/CDKN2A showed a predictive relationship with benefit from RIB in both training and test sets (Table). PFS benefit with RIB was consistent regardless of the CDK4/CDK6 expression ratio or level of expression of CCNE1, CDK2, RB1, combined CC-related genes, E2F gene signatures, RB gene signature, combined DNA-replication genes, or combined proliferation-related genes. A machine learning approach identified a clinico-genomic signature that was prognostic for PFS benefit with RIB. Selected variables included gene expression levels of FXBO5, PGR, RBBP8, and STC2 and several clinical features (tx arm, de novo disease, prior ET, and visceral disease). Pts with a low signature score had a longer mPFS vs pts with a high signature score, in the RIB (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.62) and PBO (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15-0.59) arms. Conclusion: In the largest pooled analysis of the association of gene expression profile data with CDK4/6i tx response in pts with HR+/HER2− ABC, the PFS benefit with RIB + ET over ET alone was consistent irrespective of expression levels of most CC genes. Variation in magnitude of RIB benefit was observed, depending on CDKN2B expression levels, CCND1/CDKN2A expression ratio, and machine learning–derived signature scores. The clinico-genomic CDK4/6i signature requires validation in additional datasets. Table 1: Progression-Free Survival by Gene Expression Subgroup Citation Format: Aditya Bardia, Faye Su, Nadia Solovieff, Fabrice Andre, Carlos Arteaga, Patrick Neven, Yoon-Sim Yap, Yen-Shen Lu, Stephen K. Chia, Dennis Slamon, Seock-Ah Im, Arunava Chakravartty, Agnes Lteif, Tetiana Taran, Debu Tripathy. Pooled gene expression analysis and association with treatment response in patients with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer in the MONALEESA-2, -3, and -7 trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD17-08.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207